2015 (4) TMI 549 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - Cause shown by the appellant is not at all sufficient to condone the delay. Even there are material contradictions in both the affidavits, which have been filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The Director of the appellant - company has not given true and correct facts about service of order dated 30.4.2011 and also about the fact that judgment was pronounced in the open court. No affidavit of chartered accountant has been filed that order has been served to him or judgment was not pronounced in the open court. It is well settled that sufficient cause should be construed liberally on facts without any hard and fast rule. No doubt, substantive rights of parties should not be ignored because of delay, but a distinction must be made between delay of few days and inordinate delay causing prejudice to the other side. No premium can be given for utter negligence of the appellant and giving incorrect explanation, in support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the explanation given by the appellant is not at all sufficient to condone the delay. Issue involved in this appeal has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v/s. Ghanshyam (HUF) 2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of ITAT dated 30.4.2011, which was delayed by 287 days. The appellant sought condonation of delay, claiming they were unaware of the order pronounced in open court as they were not present, and their counsel was also unaware until a demand notice was served on 4.1.2012. The appellant filed a Writ Petition which was later withdrawn, and the present appeal was filed on 7.3.2012 with a delay of 34 days. The affidavit filed by the Director of the appellant company stated they only became aware of the order on 4.1.2012 through the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

The department contended that the order was pronounced in open court, and the chartered accountant of the appellant company was present, implying that the appellant and their counsel were aware of the outcome. The ITAT service certificate confirmed that the order was served on the appellant on 24.5.2011. The Director of the appellant company mentioned that notices were usually received by the chartered accountant and redirected to them, indicating a standard practice of service.

The court found discrepancies in the affidavits filed by the appellant, concluding that the appellant's explanation for the delay was insufficient. The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay should be construed liberally but distinguished between minor delays and inordinate delays causing prejudice. The court highlighted the importance of providing correct and true facts in the application for condonation of delay, which the appellant failed to do. The court also noted that the issue in the appeal had already been settled by the Apex Court in a previous case.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating it lacked merit, and consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.